DOCSLIB.ORG

The Usurpation of Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder Sean Strong

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Usurpation of Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder Sean Strong Reconstructing the Narrative: The Usurpation of Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder Sean Strong Accepted 21 July 2020 Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.18573/share.18 ISSN 2055-4893 Issue DOI: https://doi.org/10.18573/share.v4i1 STUDIES IN HISTORY ARCHAEOLOGY RELIGION AND CONSERVATION ASTUDIAETHAU HANES ARCHAEOLEG CREFYDD A CHADWRAETH Copyright © Sean Strong ISSN 2055-4893 (online) All rights reserved. We are an open access journal and our content is freely available. The opinions and statements in all published articles and comment pieces are those of the individual authors and not of the single editors, or the editorial board. The work published herein is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. To view a copy of this licence, please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Reconstructing the Narrative: The Usurpation of Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder Sean Strong Cardiff University [email protected] Abstract This paper traces the usurpation of Nikephoros Bryennios the elder, 1077/8 AD, by examining narratives from three Byzantine historians: Michael Attaleiates, John Skylitzes, and Nikephoros Bryennios the younger. For the most part, modern scholars have focussed on investigating successful usurpation candidates who managed to rise to imperial power. For this period, this included Nikephoros Botaneiates and Alexios Komnenos. Key questions are often asked, such as how usurpers managed to succeed and why did they choose to undertake a course of usurpation, often resulting in a narrative of justification and legitimacy.1 For this period, albeit from Neville (2012) on Nikephoros Bryennios, appreciation has not been given to usurpers who failed.2 This paper will provide a chronology of Nikephoros Bryennios’ usurpation, and how these three authors depict the incident, the correlations and differences between them, and lastly, preliminary thoughts why Bryennios’ usurpation failed compared to his successful contemporaries. Keywords: Byzantium, Usurpation, Bryennios, Eleventh-Century, Literature Introduction: Usurping the Throne in Byzantium The Byzantine Empire had a long-lasting issue with political instability, and a climax was reached in the mid-late eleventh century. Jean-Claude Cheynet’s study testifies to the serious problem and has identified two hundred and twenty-three conspiracies against the throne between AD 963-1210.3 Over one hundred of these conspiracies took place in the eleventh century alone. Opposition was an important aspect of autocratic rule regardless of an individual’s aptitude for success. For imperial rule, opposition often took the form of direct usurpation, riots instigated by the racing parties, and military rebellion or mutiny in the provinces.4 These types of opposition left the emperor’s position untenable and unstable. Depending on the character and attributes of the emperor, different types of insurrection took 1 These questions are instrumental to answer in the field of usurpation because justification and legitimacy are the quintessential ingredients for understanding how individuals are successful or less fortunate in their coup attempts. The factors of justification and legitimacy intertwine with one another and are important when examining the perception of the usurper and how they were viewed by the public, state, and church during and after their usurpation. 2 For a recent, although currently unpublished, thesis that addresses some of the limitations of previous studies on usurpation during this period, see Davidson, The Glory of Ruling. 3 Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations á Byzance. 4 See Kaegi, Byzantine Military Unrest for specific case studies of civil unrest during the early and middle Byzantine period. Studies in History, Archaeology, Religion and Conservation 1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18573/share.18 ISSN 2055-4893 place. If a weak or incompetent opponent was in power, usurpation was more likely to occur. On the other hand, the use of usurpation became troublesome in justification when dynasty and lineage came into prominence. To rebel against a centralised and strong emperor, like Emperor Justinian (AD 527-565), an internal insurrection, within the city or its immediate vicinity, was more probable compared to hostile activity originating in the peripheral provinces. For Justinian, the Nika Riot (AD 532) is a key example of how internal threats were more likely to overthrow the emperor than an external enemy.5 Nonetheless, to assume all usurpations followed a similar model when analysing the emperor’s position would be unfruitful. The position, location and attributes of the usurper also need to be examined and considered when validating certain rebellious actions. Between AD 1077-1081, five usurpations occurred. Those opposing Emperor Michael VII Doukas were Nikephoros Botaneiates who started his usurpation in the eastern province in July/October 1077 and Nikephoros Bryennios in the western provinces in November 1077. Nikephoros Basilakes in the summer of 1078, Nikephoros Melissenos in Autumn of 1080, and lastly, Alexios Komnenos in early 1081 usurped against Emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates. This paper will focus on the usurpation of Nikephoros Bryennios and aims to reconstruct the events of the usurpation into a cohesive narrative and identify why the usurpation failed compared to his contemporary, Nikephoros Botaneiates. Usurpation is largely narrated through literature, nominally as stories of usurpers reaching, or failing to reach, the throne through means of vindication, justification, and legitimacy - a narrative of empire, power, and politics. Certain usurpers and their rise to power can be illustrated through numismatic imagery. In particular, the distinctions between a usurper’s image and their predecessors is an interesting topic to examine. However, due to the scope of this paper, and the strength of the literary source material, discussion will be concentrated on the literature. Davidson has acknowledged that Byzantine literature has allowed scholars to single out three notable types of usurpers.6 A usurper might act in self-defence in which they are not acting under their own beliefs or ‘wants’, instead they are forced to act against an individual or risk being killed. An example is Alexios Komnenos who rebelled against the Emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates in AD 1081 because of growing concerns of his own and his brother, 5 Malalas, Chronographia. XVIII. 475-477. 6 Davidson, The Glory of Ruling, 7-60. Studies in History, Archaeology, Religion and Conservation 2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18573/share.18 ISSN 2055-4893 Isaac’s, lives.7 Alternatively, if we are to agree with Nikephoros’ depiction of Bryennios, then Bryennios would also fill this category, because it was his belief that fighting against the throne was not the correct measure.8 The second type of usurper might launch a usurpation ‘for the greater good.’ In this circumstance, the emperor or government had threatened the stability or survival of the empire and the last resort, or best option, to prevent collapse was to instigate a usurpation to thwart the ill-doing of the current regime. An example is Nikephoros Botaneiates, who took up arms against the Emperor Michael VII Doukas in AD 1078 in the hope to stabilise the empire’s frontiers.9 By dethroning Michael, Botaneiates would also remove his unpopular eunuch advisor Nikephoritzes. Lastly, a usurper might act in their own interests, and although this last factor might have played into the other two types of usurpations, rebelling solely on lust for power had no legitimacy. The first two types of usurpers are accepted by Byzantine authors as ‘just causes.’ However, an individual acting in self-interest was not accepted. Public opinion was often a factor where usurpers found legitimacy and through the contemporary populace condoning certain actions, it ultimately led to several authors conveying the same theme through their literary works. Despite this, successful usurpers often did carry legitimacy, simply by being successful in their coup. Once a usurper attained power and transitioned to emperor, it was up to them to solidify their position. One way a ‘usurper emperor’ might do this is by commissioning literary works to consolidate their position.10 Gaining legitimacy has always been easier for those who succeed rather than those who failed. Nonetheless, it is the justification and the factor of legitimacy which have influenced the literary accounts. The various stances and factors that came as a consequence of these literary bias’s will be examined later in the paper. Note: From this moment on, I will use Bryennios to denote the eleventh century usurper, also known as the elder, and for Nikephoros Bryennios the younger, consequently the twelfth century author of the Material for History, I will simply use Nikephoros. 7 Two notable courtiers known as Borilos and Germanus, who were close with the Emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates, made several life-threatening actions against the Komnenos brothers. Anna Komnena claims this was the main reason for their revolt in 1081. Komnena, Alexiad. II.I. 8 Bryennios, Material for History. III. 5. 9 Attaleiates, History. XXVII. 213-5; Skylitzes, Continuatus. VI. 28. 10 See Booth, The Ghost of Maurice and Frendo, History and Panegyric in the Age of Heraclius concerning Heraclius’ consolidation of legitimacy through literary frameworks. Neville, Heroes and Romans, 123, notes, ‘The extended discussions of Bryennios’ reluctance to rebel, and all the forces that drove him hesitantly
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Doctoral Dissertation Márton Rózsa Byzantine Second-Tier Élite In
    Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Humanities DOCTORAL DISSERTATION MÁRTON RÓZSA BYZANTINE SECOND-TIER ÉLITE IN THE ‘LONG’ TWELFTH CENTURY Doctoral School of History Head of the doctoral school: Dr. Gábor Erdődy Doctoral Programme of Medieval and Early Modern World History Head of the doctoral programme: Dr. Balázs Nagy Supervisor: Dr. Balázs Nagy Members of the assessment committee: Dr. István Draskóczy, Chair Dr. Gábor Thoroczkay, PhD, Secretary Dr. Floris Bernard, opponent Dr. Andreas Rhoby, opponent Dr. István Baán, member Dr. László Horváth, PhD, member Budapest, 2019 ADATLAP a d o kt ori ért e k e z é s n yit v á n o s s á gr a h a z at al á h o z l. A d o kt ori ért e k e z é s a d at ai A s z et z ő n e v e: Ró z s a ] u í árt o n MT M'f-azonosító: 1 0 0 1 9 2 7 0 A d o kt ori ért e k e z é s c í m e é s al c í m e: B y z a nti n e Second-Tie, Éttt ein t h e 'Lang'Tu,e\th C e nt ur y f) Ol-azonosító: 1 íl. l 5 1 7 6/ E L T E. 2 0 I 9. 0 5 ő A d o kt ori i s k ol a n e v e: Tü,t énele míuclo mányi D ol ú ori { sl ail a A d o kt ori pr o gr í } m n e v e: Köz é p k ori é s kora újkori e gt e í e m e s tört é n eti Doktori Progratn A t é mavezető n e v e ó s tudo mányos fcrkozata: § a g y * B ai ú z s.
    [Show full text]
  • Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger – the First One Not to Become a Blind Man? Political and Military History of the Bryennios Family in the 11Th and Early 12Th Century
    Studia Ceranea 10, 2020, p. 31–45 ISSN: 2084-140X DOI: 10.18778/2084-140X.10.02 e-ISSN: 2449-8378 Marcin Böhm (Opole) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5393-3176 Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger – the First One Not to Become a Blind Man? Political and Military History of the Bryennios Family in the 11th and Early 12th Century ikephoros Bryennios the Younger (1062–1137) has a place in the history N of the Byzantine Empire as a historian and husband of Anna Komnene (1083–1153), a woman from the imperial family. His historical work on the his- tory of the Komnenian dynasty in the 11th century is an extremely valuable source of information about the policies of the empire’s major families, whose main goal was to seize power in Constantinople1. Nikephoros was also a talented commander, which he proved by serving his father-in-law Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) and brother-in-law John II Komnenos (1118–1143). The marriage gave him free access to people and documents which he also enriched with the history of his own family. It happened because Nikephoros Bryennios was not the first representative of his family who played an important role in the internal policy of the empire. He had two predecessors, his grandfather, and great grand- father, who according to the family tradition had the same name as our hero. They 1 J. Seger, Byzantinische Historiker des zehnten und elften Jahrhunderts, vol. I, Nikephoros Bryennios, München 1888, p. 31–33; W. Treadgold, The Middle Byzantine Historians, Basingstoke 2013, p. 344–345; A.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Conquests in the East in the 10 Century
    th Byzantine conquests in the East in the 10 century Campaigns of Nikephoros II Phocas and John Tzimiskes as were seen in the Byzantine sources Master thesis Filip Schneider s1006649 15. 6. 2018 Eternal Rome Supervisor: Prof. dr. Maaike van Berkel Master's programme in History Radboud Univerity Front page: Emperor Nikephoros II Phocas entering Constantinople in 963, an illustration from the Madrid Skylitzes. The illuminated manuscript of the work of John Skylitzes was created in the 12th century Sicily. Today it is located in the National Library of Spain in Madrid. Table of contents Introduction 5 Chapter 1 - Byzantine-Arab relations until 963 7 Byzantine-Arab relations in the pre-Islamic era 7 The advance of Islam 8 The Abbasid Caliphate 9 Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty 10 The development of Byzantine Empire under Macedonian dynasty 11 The land aristocracy 12 The Muslim world in the 9th and 10th century 14 The Hamdamids 15 The Fatimid Caliphate 16 Chapter 2 - Historiography 17 Leo the Deacon 18 Historiography in the Macedonian period 18 Leo the Deacon - biography 19 The History 21 John Skylitzes 24 11th century Byzantium 24 Historiography after Basil II 25 John Skylitzes - biography 26 Synopsis of Histories 27 Chapter 3 - Nikephoros II Phocas 29 Domestikos Nikephoros Phocas and the conquest of Crete 29 Conquest of Aleppo 31 Emperor Nikephoros II Phocas and conquest of Cilicia 33 Conquest of Cyprus 34 Bulgarian question 36 Campaign in Syria 37 Conquest of Antioch 39 Conclusion 40 Chapter 4 - John Tzimiskes 42 Bulgarian problem 42 Campaign in the East 43 A Crusade in the Holy Land? 45 The reasons behind Tzimiskes' eastern campaign 47 Conclusion 49 Conclusion 49 Bibliography 51 Introduction In the 10th century, the Byzantine Empire was ruled by emperors coming from the Macedonian dynasty.
    [Show full text]
  • BYZANTINE CAMEOS and the AESTHETICS of the ICON By
    BYZANTINE CAMEOS AND THE AESTHETICS OF THE ICON by James A. Magruder, III A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland March 2014 © 2014 James A. Magruder, III All rights reserved Abstract Byzantine icons have attracted artists and art historians to what they saw as the flat style of large painted panels. They tend to understand this flatness as a repudiation of the Classical priority to represent Nature and an affirmation of otherworldly spirituality. However, many extant sacred portraits from the Byzantine period were executed in relief in precious materials, such as gemstones, ivory or gold. Byzantine writers describe contemporary icons as lifelike, sometimes even coming to life with divine power. The question is what Byzantine Christians hoped to represent by crafting small icons in precious materials, specifically cameos. The dissertation catalogs and analyzes Byzantine cameos from the end of Iconoclasm (843) until the fall of Constantinople (1453). They have not received comprehensive treatment before, but since they represent saints in iconic poses, they provide a good corpus of icons comparable to icons in other media. Their durability and the difficulty of reworking them also makes them a particularly faithful record of Byzantine priorities regarding the icon as a genre. In addition, the dissertation surveys theological texts that comment on or illustrate stone to understand what role the materiality of Byzantine cameos played in choosing stone relief for icons. Finally, it examines Byzantine epigrams written about or for icons to define the terms that shaped icon production.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric and the Philosopher in Byzantium*
    Rhetoric and the philosopher in Byzantium* STRATIS PAPAIOANNOU The scene is familiar. A Byzantine ‘sophist’ enters the stage. The ‘philoso- phers’ are polite and graciously greet him, yet reject his company. In their eyes, he is not one of them. By contrast, the ‘sophists’ or, as the text also names them, the ‘rhetoro-sophists’ receive him with enthusiasm and grant him an honourable place among themselves. The (early?) twelfth-century author of the Timarion, to whom we owe this description,1 could not have imagined how his positioning of the Byzantine philosopher or, as he prefers to call him, ‘sophist’ would endure beyond the infernal stage of Hades, where Timarion’s oneiric experience takes place. Byzantine philosophers may still be valued today for their rhetoric and other technical skills (of, say, copying, collecting, or commenting upon philosophical texts), but rarely for their philosophy.2 The author of the Timarion did not, of course, have the future of Byzantine philosophers in mind. What his sarcastic pen was aiming at was to disqualify the philosophical aspirations of self-professed philosophers of his immediate present. He did so by referring to an age-old anxiety of pre- modern Greek writing dating back to, at least, the writings of Plato in fourth-century Athens. The anxiety pertained to the definition and regulation of the relation between discursive content and discursive form, between thought and language, or, as it came to be seen, between philosophy and rhetoric. The anxiety was provoked by the desire on the part of self- proclaimed ‘philosophers’—such as Plato—to mark a distinct, privileged space for their own discursive production within the highly competitive field of public discourse in Athenian social life.3 The negotiation between philosophy and rhetoric remained a constant point of reference for many generations of Greek writers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nephew of Michael Cerularios , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:1 (1981:Spring) P.89
    SNIPES, KENNETH, A Letter of Michael Psellus to Constantine the Nephew of Michael Cerularios , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:1 (1981:Spring) p.89 A Letter of Michael Psellos to Constantine the Nephew of Michael Cerularios Kenneth Snipes N AN ARTICLE listing the unpublished letters of Michael Psellos, I Jean Darrouzes noted that a small group of six letters attrib­ uted to Psellos is found in three manuscripts: Athas, Mov~ Meyiar17c; Aavpac; 1721 (M 30) fols. 86-98; Bucharest, Academia Republicii Socialiste Romania 737 (587) fols. 214-49; and Cam­ bridge, Trinity College 1485 (0.10.33) fols. 192-203v. 1 In addi­ tion to the three manuscripts known to Darrouzes, these six letters are found also in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Supplement grec 1334 fols. 108-23v.2 Three of the six (the first, fourth, and sixth) were correctly identified by Darrouzes as letters already published by Sathas or Kurtz-Drexl. 3 Darrouzes, followed by Paul Canart in a later, more comprehensive list of the unpublished letters of Psellos, 4 believed that the other three letters (the second, third, and fifth) had not yet been published. In the case of the third and fifth letters, however, both scholars have been misled by slight differ­ ences between the word order of their incipits and the incipits of letters 1 and 84 in the large collection of Psellos' letters edited by Sathas. 5 The fifth letter, for example, begins 'Eyw be qJf.11'/V, lepd Kai rpzn6(}1Jre Kerpa).lj, rather than 'Eyw tliv, w lepa Kai rpzn6()17re Kerpa).,~ as in the version in Parisinus gr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Byzantine State and the Dynatoi
    The Byzantine State and the Dynatoi A struggle for supremacy 867 - 1071 J.J.P. Vrijaldenhoven S0921084 Van Speijkstraat 76-II 2518 GE ’s Gravenhage Tel.: 0628204223 E-mail: [email protected] Master Thesis Europe 1000 - 1800 Prof. Dr. P. Stephenson and Prof. Dr. P.C.M. Hoppenbrouwers History University of Leiden 30-07-2014 CONTENTS GLOSSARY 2 INTRODUCTION 6 CHAPTER 1 THE FIRST STRUGGLE OF THE DYNATOI AND THE STATE 867 – 959 16 STATE 18 Novel (A) of Leo VI 894 – 912 18 Novels (B and C) of Romanos I Lekapenos 922/928 and 934 19 Novels (D, E and G) of Constantine VII Porphyrogenetos 947 - 959 22 CHURCH 24 ARISTOCRACY 27 CONCLUSION 30 CHAPTER 2 LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE PERIOD OF THE WARRIOR EMPERORS 959 - 1025 32 STATE 34 Novel (F) of Romanos II 959 – 963. 34 Novels (H, J, K, L and M) of Nikephoros II Phokas 963 – 969. 34 Novels (N and O) of Basil II 988 – 996 37 CHURCH 42 ARISTOCRACY 45 CONCLUSION 49 CHAPTER 3 THE CHANGING STATE AND THE DYNATOI 1025 – 1071 51 STATE 53 CHURCH 60 ARISTOCRACY 64 Land register of Thebes 65 CONCLUSION 68 CONCLUSION 70 APPENDIX I BYZANTINE EMPERORS 867 - 1081 76 APPENDIX II MAPS 77 BIBLIOGRAPHY 82 1 Glossary Aerikon A judicial fine later changed into a cash payment. Allelengyon Collective responsibility of a tax unit to pay each other’s taxes. Anagraphis / Anagrapheus Fiscal official, or imperial tax assessor, who held a role similar as the epoptes. Their major function was the revision of the tax cadastre. It is implied that they measured land and on imperial order could confiscate lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Lamentation, History, and Female Authorship in Anna Komnene’S Alexiad Leonora Neville
    Lamentation, History, and Female Authorship in Anna Komnene’s Alexiad Leonora Neville NE OF THE MOST commonly read and widely available Byzantine histories is the Alexiad, a history of the em- Operor Alexios Komnenos, who ruled 1081–1118, by his daughter Anna Komnene (1083–1153). Anna’s first-hand descriptions of the passage of the First Crusade are frequently excerpted as expressing a paradigmatic ‘Byzantine view’ of the crusades. Although it is perhaps the most frequently read medieval Byzantine text, it is far from typical of Byzantine histories. Anna’s work is invariably called a history and she de- scribes herself explicitly as writing a history. Yet in its title, Alexiad, and frequent Homeric vocabulary and imagery, it brings the archaic epics to mind.1 The characterization of Alexios as a wily sea captain steering the empire through con- stant storms with guile and courage strongly recalls Odysseus.2 Both in its epic cast and in other factors discussed below, Anna did not adhere strictly to the rules of writing history and rather seems to have played with the boundaries of the genre. The 1 A. Dyck, “Iliad and Alexiad: Anna Comnena’s Homeric Reminiscences,” GRBS 27 (1985) 113–120. Anna’s husband, Nikephoros Bryennios, wrote a history of the rise of Alexios Komnenos in which Alexios ends up seeming less heroic than his political enemy Nikephoros Bryennios the elder (the author’s grandfather). At the point where Alexios has defeated Bryennios the elder, Nikephoros says that “another Iliad would be needed” to tell the deeds of his grandfather properly.
    [Show full text]
  • Sind Für Diesen Dreigeteilten Index Ausgewertet Worden. Mittelalterliche Namen Werden Nach Dem Vor- Namen Geordnet (Verweisung Vom Familiennamen)
    INDEX Alle Kapitel bis auf den Katalog (Kapitel 7.2.) sind für diesen dreigeteilten Index ausgewertet worden. Mittelalterliche Namen werden nach dem Vor- namen geordnet (Verweisung vom Familiennamen). Personen und Sachen Abt 155, 158, 161, 163, 165, 166, 169 Anonymer Professor 15, 37, 39, 58, 81, 87, Achilleus Tatios 84, 197 133, 148, 157, 176 Adressant 31, 39, 42 Anonymer protobestiarios 15 Adressat 31, 36, 39, 42, 57, 60 Anonymer protonotarios 15 Adresse 41, 67 Anonymus Marcianus 16, 58, 60, 81, 88, Adrianos Komnenos 106 90, 118, 202 Äbtissin, Klostervorsteherin 99, 163, 181, Anrede, 182, 184, 185, 198 abstrakt 41, 44, 94, 141, 144, 147, 149, Ägypten 35, 123 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 173, 179, 184, Aikaterine, Kaiserin 138 192, 193 Aineias von Gaza 15, 57, 58, 63, 180, 197 Alliteration 72, 77 Ainios → Ephraim Amt 108, 155, 200 Akropolites → Konstantinos annominatio 73 Alcuin 29 Antike 44, 78, 92, 95, 98, 107, 116, Alexander der Große 81 117, 118, 122, 200 Alexandros, Kaiser 139, 140 Berufsbezeichnung107, 110 Alexandros III., Papst 15 Bruder 52, 53, 54, 120, 124, 127, 128, Alexandros von Nikaia 14, 15, 58, 63, 160, 194 101 direkt 40, 42, 57, 59, 70 et passim Alexios I. Komnenos 138, 146 Eigennamen 40, 60, 71 Alexios Aristenos 75, 80, 108, 177, 201 Alexios Giphardos 177 Epanalepsis 76 Alexios, monachos 15 Etymologie 73 Al-Muqtadir 68, 148, 150–152, 173, 200 Familienname 67 Amtsbruder 160 Fehlen 115 Amtskollege 48, 54, 128, 201 Frage 128, 129 Anastasios, Kaiser 38, 130 Frau 67, 119, 170, 178, 180, 181, 182, Anastasios 15, 38 184, 185 Anastasius III., Papst 154, 200 Freund 52 Anchialos → Michael Funktionsbezeichnung 107, 108, 155, Andronikos I.
    [Show full text]
  • Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection
    Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection 2016–2017 Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Annual Report 2016–2017 © 2017 Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, D.C. ISSN 0197-9159 Cover photograph: The Byzantine Courtyard for the reopening of the museum in April 2017. Frontispiece: The Music Room after the installation of new LED lighting. www.doaks.org/about/annual-reports Contents From the Director 7 Director’s Office 13 Academic Programs 19 Fellowship Reports 35 Byzantine Studies 59 Garden and Landscape Studies 69 Pre-Columbian Studies 85 Library 93 Publications 99 Museum 113 Gardens 121 Friends of Music 125 Facilities, Finance, Human Resources, and Information Technology 129 Administration and Staff 135 From the Director A Year of Collaboration Even just within the walls and fencing of our sixteen acres, too much has happened over the past year for a full accounting. Attempting to cover all twelve months would be hopeless. Instead, a couple of happenings in May exemplify the trajectory on which Dumbarton Oaks is hurtling forward and upward. The place was founded for advanced research. No one who respects strong and solid tradi- tions would wrench it from the scholarship enshrined in its library, archives, and research collections; at the same time, it was designed to welcome a larger public. These two events give tribute to this broader engagement. To serve the greater good, Dumbarton Oaks now cooperates vigorously with local schools. It is electrifying to watch postdoc- toral and postgraduate fellows help students enjoy and learn from our gardens and museum collections. On May 16, we hosted a gath- ering with delegates from the DC Collaborative.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831
    Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775–831 East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 General Editor Florin Curta VOLUME 16 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/ecee Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775–831 By Panos Sophoulis LEIDEN • BOSTON 2012 Cover illustration: Scylitzes Matritensis fol. 11r. With kind permission of the Bulgarian Historical Heritage Foundation, Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all rights holders to any copyrighted material used in this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomes communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sophoulis, Pananos, 1974– Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775–831 / by Panos Sophoulis. p. cm. — (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450, ISSN 1872-8103 ; v. 16.) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-20695-3 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Byzantine Empire—Relations—Bulgaria. 2. Bulgaria—Relations—Byzantine Empire. 3. Byzantine Empire—Foreign relations—527–1081. 4. Bulgaria—History—To 1393. I. Title. DF547.B9S67 2011 327.495049909’021—dc23 2011029157 ISSN 1872-8103 ISBN 978 90 04 20695 3 Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Critiques of Monasticism in the Twelfth Century
    A “Truly Unmonastic Way of Life”: Byzantine Critiques of Monasticism in the Twelfth Century DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Hannah Elizabeth Ewing Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Professor Timothy Gregory, Advisor Professor Anthony Kaldellis Professor Alison I. Beach Copyright by Hannah Elizabeth Ewing 2014 Abstract This dissertation examines twelfth-century Byzantine writings on monasticism and holy men to illuminate monastic critiques during this period. Drawing upon close readings of texts from a range of twelfth-century voices, it processes both highly biased literary evidence and the limited documentary evidence from the period. In contextualizing the complaints about monks and reforms suggested for monasticism, as found in the writings of the intellectual and administrative elites of the empire, both secular and ecclesiastical, this study shows how monasticism did not fit so well in the world of twelfth-century Byzantium as it did with that of the preceding centuries. This was largely on account of developments in the role and operation of the church and the rise of alternative cultural models that were more critical of traditional ascetic sanctity. This project demonstrates the extent to which twelfth-century Byzantine society and culture had changed since the monastic heyday of the tenth century and contributes toward a deeper understanding of Byzantine monasticism in an under-researched period of the institution. ii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my family, and most especially to my parents. iii Acknowledgments This dissertation is indebted to the assistance, advice, and support given by Anthony Kaldellis, Tim Gregory, and Alison Beach.
    [Show full text]